Hi!
I want to thank you for that. I really do. It is probably one of the most thoughtful, cohernet, and inspiring rsponces I've ever gotten on these threads. Plus, even if you would feel (and this ihis is not the case) that your words would fall on deaf ears, it must have felt good to be able to articulate your thoughts, even just for yourself, to know that you can express and share a profound idea.
I thank you for your kind words in return...I really feared I was going to get made fun of, especially since I truly didn't think coherence was something I was very high on at the time. And it still feels like there's a lot left out, like there are other pieces I understand but can't really speak yet. And often I suspect the missing pieces are the ones that would really, truly make the difference.
In many ways, I agree, love is a two street, dependant on its reciporical. When love is only experienced by one person, it most certainly empty. Like yelling though a hollow tube.
Exactly...and you drain yourself through that tube, too--it's not only empty, but leaves YOU empty as well.
And free will and love are inextricably tied, too. Without free will, there is no love, not in its true form. And this is so integral to why it is that free will is prized above life itself and the destruction thereof the greatest crime, even above the reasonless taking of life, and why it is permissible to willingly lay down one's life to bring life to another. If
life were the prime value, then such sacrifice would never be permissible, not from us, and certainly not from the One who made us.
Now on a weird Trek tangent for a moment...I think that's why we have such a powerful response to the concept of the Borg, to zombies, and other tales where the will is stolen: I think we understand this on the deepest level.
Yet if free will IS indeed above life, and is required for the perfection of love, this has major, MAJOR ramifications, and brings what otherwise seem like extreme risks into play.
LLike I said it is the most thoughtful responce on the subject. I appreciate it.
That said, I still can't bring myself to agree with it. The reason: it seems to once again call into question definition of God. I'm not talking in the cliche ways that this is done like "Can god create a stone he himself cannot lift?" and yadda yadda but at the same tme if he is so needy, so incomplete, then the definitions that many bestow on him wouldnt fit (that he is omniscient, omnipotent). So in many ways one would have to accept that God is not so allpowerful, because he, too, needs.
I can see where you're getting the idea, but what I'm thinking is a shade different. Bear with me, because I'm having a VERY hard time getting across what I see.
I don't see God as needing our support the same way that a human would, that He would diminish as we would. It's more...it is an inherent expression of His nature, that He loves, and would create others to be part of that love. Abundance is the word that comes to mind. He IS--all existence is from Him and an expression of Him. We are part of that expression.
I'm not trying to suggest pantheism or the Carl Sagan type idea, though I can see where my words might seem as though they're getting close. He is very, very present in the universe, and expresses Himself in its ongoing creation (ongoing from our perspective, of course--to be completed, being completed, and complete from His...at least, as best as we can guess at it), but He IS beyond it as well--not just an unconscious force, but knowing Himself. He is an amazingly dynamic phenomenon, not just sitting there idly, but
active. The sheer dynamism is far, far beyond my ability to convey--and that, too, is part of omnipotence...it doesn't sit still; it surges outward. (Which makes it quite remarkable the one time I'm aware of that we EVER have a mention of God seeming, even for a time, to "sit still," though you can bet He was very active in His joy, taking everything in.)
We, of course, are far from omnipotent, and we're certainly a very unusual facet of the Creation considering that we have minds and identities of our own. Still, I believe that we are inherently part of that plan, and our roles in it, including our ability to enter the relationship of love that I described before, are part of that expression. What you wrote suggests, in a way, that we're God's weakness. Instead, I think this Creation (and we are a part of it) part of His strength, part of that definition and that abundance and that dynamism.
Plus I truly believe his method, his modus operendi is wrong. In a successful romantic relationship, love is conditional, and it has to be earned. same thing with parental love. If my parfents were abusive dicks, they would not earn my love or even respect. It doesn't matter if they are my parents (I do love my parents) their love is not unconditional. Yet God places this love, this worship as a mandate, and he phrases it like an ultimatum, that anyone who doesn't follow along will be summerily excluded. And, one of the commandments attributes uncondiotional love to one's parents: as I said, I disagree with that.
If your parents were abusive...call me crazy, but I think love might be expressed by not giving yourself over to hate: being out of their lives, being OUT of the situation, and coming to peace so that the bitterness does not consume you. For me, if my parents had been in that situation, but I still sought to follow Christ's way as I do now...I think that love would express itself in learning, however haltingly, to pray for them (and not in the "PLEASE, God, let them die in a fiery car crash" way). But these are human beings we're talking about, and goodness knows if we're being judged on a merit system, we're in trouble.
And when it comes to human beings, who are subject to such imperfections, a VERY safe distance would be KEY. Love, therefore, would NOT be expressing itself in the outwardly normal ways: displays of affection towards that person, words of admiration spoken, or any of that, because you can bet it wouldn't be safe and wouldn't be merited. But to pray, and not to be consumed by hate despite hateful things done to oneself...that's love, too, and it is indeed unconditional. It would NOT, however, be the masochistic idea you're suggesting, that puts you in line for more abuse.
I believe, however, that the love of God is a very different thing in that it is actually merited. With the love of God comes the love of what He has created, and what
He created, with
His choice (as opposed to what we did with OUR choice, and all the effects you see of this) is right and true.
I think that to fundamentally turn away from Him involves the whole of one's soul. One's entire moral compass, so to speak--it's a very, very total rejection. I believe, though, that only He knows for sure who has actually made this sort of rejection, and this is why I don't get into saying I know 100% who is and is not saved. I do not know all of the way that He speaks to others, or have all of the information He does about their lives and who exactly they are at their deepest core. I expect there will be some real surprises when I am in the next life, and there will be those I meet there who will be very surprised that from their perspective when they were on Earth, I somehow scratched my way in, too.
This is why I believe that there IS Hell, and that some end up there--because the rejection I'm talking about is WAY more than dumping your boyfriend/girlfriend, or even cutting off your parents. I think it's the entire tuning of your soul, so to speak. Granted, I have some VERY, VERY strong suspicions on certain cases, that I can't say I doubt. But humility demands I recognize that what I am saying is NOT the binding law of the universe. I can't speak and make things BE.
I think that if you ever read C.S. Lewis'
The Last Battle, or what Lewis has to say about non-believers in
Mere Christianity, you might see a better explanation of the whole Hell issue, and some of the possibilities (though again, just because I speak it does not mean it IS, no matter how possible I think it is).
I have to drop my pretense here and be honest, just as you have been: there maybe a god, but we don't know anything about it. So, to fill in what we don't know, we assign him him human traits, things we can relate to. Including vanity.
I believe that I have encountered God in various experiences, and I believe that I have rightly answered His call to respond to Him. Though make no mistake, my response is very much like a child's response in that it stumbles and...well, it's kind of like a little kid handing their scribbled artwork to their parent: I try my heart out, and I believe it means something, but though there may be hints of technical perfection, where you could probably tell I see some of what needs to be done, there is a LOT that misses the mark or simply doesn't grasp the concept yet.
This demands a lot of humility (which can be another one of those crayon-scribbles sometimes, but at least I know there's a spot on the paper for it!), knowing that we can't always get all of it or explain it right...and I'm sure I've demonstrated THAT last point very nicely. But, I still want very much to try.
). And these two parties must have their own wills, and give their love freely, in order for it to be complete. When complete, love intensifies in a sort of feedback loop from one to the other that grows more wonderful with each iteration.
